Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    October 17, 2010 11:30pm-12:00am PST

12:30 am
giving us an award. e.p.a. should talk about this and advertising what we do on that level is obviously just to get another award. president miguel: i really like to thank you, anmarie, and the department on moving this this far and like to remind everyone that as you menninged and keeping open until the end of the year and the questions into you and more and more for san francisco the concept of roof decks which have been around the city for a long time and the concept is increasing and we have a situation where people do not wish it to look like another floor by solid wall so the suggestion of a glass wall obviously all ties into this.
12:31 am
we're al as a mission streetscape plan and better streets plan and everything is that the idea of greening in that sense, actual greens, the city with trees and planted streetscape so when you are talking about the fact the buildings facing parks in effect we are doing medians with trees and greens and bushes and creating mini parks in a way that would fall within these descriptions. and there has to be some coordination in the very plans of the departments putting out in that regard. and the other thing i was pleased to see in there is your comment on the possibility of alternative treatments being available because of all the technology that's been coming
12:32 am
through as far as buildings are concerned and perhaps glass technology has evolved more and is evolving faster than anything else in building materials that i have seen. and that will continue to do so and will affect what we're talking about here. so just to put something down as an absolute doesn't all work until there is that out for new technology coming forward so we don't have to revise this every six months. but i really appreciate the work that's been done and the people that have been interfacing with you on. commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i need to acknowledge the hat miss irving was wearing. that hat actually last night won second prize in environmental innovative and creative and it is not designed by her, but we borrowed it so she could indeed show it off today. >> if i could for a minute,
12:33 am
commissioners, you made some really good comments and i took note of all them and would like to respond to a few points. number one, the most important one that was mentioned is marketing this to the public and i will admit this is a very tough sell when i was first asked to take on the project, i said, what, are you kidding me? it is not intuitive to something that's part of the everyday life and windows and has been for a while that could be such a big problem. i was approached the topic with a great deal of skepticism, but i think the research is following me there that this is an issue that warrants our response. and i think it's something that we can do smartly and effectively so that we don't lose all the other good design we're looking for. we might have o find a comprise where we're not asking for buildings to be 100% bird safe but looking at situations that are proven to be most dangerous and addressing those and figure if we can cut down a majority of deaths that are predictable, then that is a really good step.
12:34 am
the other point about the aia, we did work with them an it will built before the draft is release and look forward to working with them and i will add the e.p.a. to the list in the outreach. and miss shepherd noted that leed is moving and recognized this is an issue and they are working with the american bird conservancy and other groups to address it in the future. there are other options -- and there is a little problem in the way this item is calendared. it is listed as an informational item and there is a resolution but the action is to direct
12:35 am
staff to continue work, so i think we can do that without a resolution. president miguel: correct. i think we have to make a motion to vote -- just a recommendation. secretary avery: commissioners, because the bold print on the calendar says it is an informational item, you cannot take a motion. so you've directed staff through your comments to do three things. president miguel: that should be enough. i would mention to anmarie one thing to help your sales to the public is to note that other cities like chicago and i think i heard minneapolis might be doing these things and not like it's only happens in san francisco. that might be a little easier sell. >> we will take a 20-minute recess. secretary avery: thank you. commission is taking a 20--
12:36 am
affordable housing. we invited craig to come talk to you about that. the bulk of the presentation after they covers that material will be the differences between the draft one and the draft two. i know you have been receiving a number of com hents. we received some as well. i'll spend time going over what we see as the major issues and then turn it to you guys before that. i wanted to give craig a couple of minutes to talk to you about the federal housing piece that you asked about at the last hearing. >> good afternoon, craig adelman, i don't have much this the way of remarks, i am mainly here to answer questions. i know there were questions before you in the past about -- about we -- lease to own housing opportunity which is is not
12:37 am
something that san francisco has traditionally done and not been real common in california and in particular, as you may or may not know, the mayor's office of housing and the redevelopment agency serve as having -- an agencies -- agencies and one of our primary impacts on affordable housing in the city is to finance private developers with -- with a number of programs, both local and leveraging those dollars with federal programs. to facilitate the production of affordable housing, both rental and ownership housing. our primary vehicle that we used to leverage as many of you may be aware is the low encome housing tax credit, the housing tax credit has been around since 1987 and is used in the majority of affordable housing production rental production nationwide. the tax credit is specific to
12:38 am
affordable rental housing and -- specifically rental housing targeted at & median income of 60% or below. in particular one of the reasons why nationwide that the tax credit per irs guidelines only requires a -- a minimum of -- affordability period of 15 years, throughout much of the country, particularly in -- in republic decades, competition around the tax credit has been fierce and one the key ways that a locationality and states in particular have -- have tried to leverage the value of the tax credit is to require much longer terms of affordable. in california, we in essence have a minimum affordability period of 55 years for huffing that is produced with the low income housing tax credit.
12:39 am
which this turn requires that housing remight not as rental housing for the 55-year period and precludes the opportunity to do a he's to open structure. beyond that, we -- we -- it is not that we're against home ownership opportunities, we have a number of home ownership programs again where we use local dollars and leverage that with low interest pnsing available at the state level. so we do provide home ownership at some points, so i'm in the sure if there was specific questions or what the thoughts were regarding the policy vance of a lease to own program. again we don't look to develop affordable rental housing at the -- at the -- without ols having an aa home ownership component. we have programs this cover both ends of the spectrum there. i -- i think beyond that, it has
12:40 am
been our pleasure to work with your terrific staff and members of the san francisco community in developing and bringing the housing element to its current state, we look forward to being one, as always, as the key city partnerships in had terms of implementing the plan that is ultimately approved and adopted and in inevitably a critical component of reaching the -- reaching the goals inside the housing development will provide subsidy and other financing tools. bringing those to the table which inevitably the mayor's office is a significant part of and we look forward to continuing to play that role and working in partnership with the planning department. as you -- you almost certainly will note both from past experience with housing elements and just -- just the nature of or housing market in san francisco, you -- you'll see that the housing element draft
12:41 am
has -- as it stands today points out that perhaps the biggest impediment to meeting the goals is a lack of capital resources to do so. we have some -- we're always in search of others but inevitably in good times and bad, dealing with -- with a shortfall in terms of meeting the needs of a community such as san francisco, which has such -- a stressed housinger market in terms of -- of where the market is compared to affordability levels. with that i will turn it back to the planning department staff. i'm available for questions. >> so, as i said before, the main focus of our discussion today is really the differences between draft one and draft two, there was a year separated between the two of them. and before i get into that, e want to spend time talking about how we got to where we are, sarah and i and some other staff
12:42 am
at the department has been working on the housing element for for over two years now. we started -- with started with a community advisory body that included members from each supervisor district. we used them as the working body to develop the first draft. following that we also did over 30 public meetings throughout the city, hosted by various neighborhood associations. we had an online survey and a few hearings before you including the release of the first draft. the com moments we received on the first draft are online. here's a summary matrix. i believe that's been circulated in your packet before. so the draft with us published in june of 2009, following that we -- we received a number of comments. all are in the matrix in your packet. i believe there's a last appendix.
12:43 am
these are circulated drafts and subsequently received more comments. we really feel the strength of this housing element, especially on the 2004 is the energy and the staff time and -- sort of the community input that has been involved in really crafting and -- getting to -- getting the different policies ironed out. in -- we, the comments we received although a number in that really focus on a few key issues. i think we're going to sort of focus our discussion onthat pop just sort of a, for the public and -- i know many of you have had the pleasure of serving or being involved in the 2004 housing element, what we're trying to do with the housing element update. in fact that's a revision we felt we should make between the version one and version two is really clarify, what does the housing element do. it is an at some point for -- for the city to man for growth. to manage the growth that we see
12:44 am
coming. it is our communication to the state to show that we are actually able to accommodate the growth that is projected for our area. it is for tove think about -- to have everybody think about this. what it does not doo is implement any changes. the adoption of the housing element does not result in changes in the zoning, it does not result in the approval of any projects. it doesn't sir come vent any standard public pearmings appearance processes for -- for, policy adoption. so, it kind of sets a policy framework, and then all of those pieces would go through the standard public process and legislative process, which includes community heergs and public hearings and this
12:45 am
commission and the board of supervisors as well. just to sort of get that cleared up, the document the we're talking about. really, the comments we received between draft one and draft two, and sort of on the changes that were made, really focus on two main issues, one what is the relationship between community planning and the community planning process and how high we plan for housing. the second is -- the relationship between how we man for housing and new development or smart growth. i'm -- on the first one respect community planning process, we heard a lot of questions about what did the word we use mean. what does neighborhood supportive mean? what does community supported mean? how do we -- are we being clear enough with -- with explaining what the process is and the procedures would be when an area plan was implemented or when a new project was started or anticipate of the things that -- that the housing element
12:46 am
discusses or calls for. we did -- our best to work between draft one and draft two to try and clarify and articulate and make sure that people understood the processes we used that we think held up really well in the better neighborhoods and eastern neighborhoods would be used any sort of future efforts. we're looking for a -- for you're feedback and advice on sort what -- what is the best way to communicate the relationship between the community -- community planning process. the second is trans-- development. there's a lot of sort of planries words and smart growth, and kind of starts sounding like the same thing. i think it create at lot of confusion in the community, this is maybe left over from the 200 housing element, i think there was a lot of -- of public energy and discussion around a map that came out with a large buffer
12:47 am
zone, kind of showing -- showing a growth area throughout the entire city almost, and there was a map again in the -- in the first draft of our housing element of 2009 housing element. it created a lot of just comfort and -- discomfort and confusion. in this draft we tried to really be as specific as we could about what does -- what does trans oriented development mean. and this is a housing development for the next seven years and sets the framework for where we're moving in the next 20 years. so, we are really looking for feedback on -- on where the commission would like us to move with that specific issue. there's one policy that was in draft one. at that point it was policy 1.5. it read support new housing projects on sites located close to major transit. that created a lot of -- it
12:48 am
generated public comment and people thought it was ambiguous. we pulled it out. the thought that's one place between graft one and two, we think we could do work. with all of you and the staff as well, you get that to a good spot. we like to get direction from you on those two issues. and inal going to leave it this. if staff is here and vibble no expes and comments. thank you. >> for questions and comments. is i'm -- represent san francisco tomorrow. -- thank you for my hat. my comments refer to -- to the
12:49 am
question of staff guidance. i have two proposals. up front. we need a discussion format, so you better understand and we better understand how e.i.r.'s and the housing elements interrelate in their complexity. this is not a good format for discussions and understanding. secondly, nonconflicted expertise needs to be called in that is not on the payroll or benefits the -- benefit financially from what goes on here. i suggest people like mr. hartman or anthony -- carl anthony for example, who knows the city. i believe that this is not a good faith document as specified by the state in terms of what needs to be done. here it is -- it is a set of our comments, if you would take it that we submitted repeatedly
12:50 am
which is not noted or commented upon at all. it is not noted or commented on at all. it deals specifically with the question of mitigation. we have terrible needs during the coming depression that is going to get deeper. we have resources, shortages before and more so come up. we have not looked into the expediency and ness di of the means and resources to make it so. a definition of a policy is -- is an administrative directive intended to be enforced. that's a definition it is not something to encourage or comfort willie whatever. that's merely an intrinsib document to the way things have been done. it is not legal. you need to come up with specific litigation in the documents which i have
12:51 am
previously given to you. we needed a evaluation of past performance. it is not there. how did our previous actions and propose -- proposals worked. that's required by state law. insufficient data, in terms of diversity of need that we need to address now and into the future, projected. h.d.d. requires that. i wrote that law. mitigation. i just indicated to you, it is totally lacking. how do we make it work? we don't want to encourage, we want to make it work. and the politician of that belong in the board of supervisors, not you. you are empowered and by your oath of office to come up with an objective professional proceedings. this is not been done. that is not a good thing. finally you haven't loaned inside safety and numerous other
12:52 am
things. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. member of the park improvement association. i'm going to read this quickly. the draft june 2010 housing element should have over arching policies that maintain the character of the residently zoned neighborhoods and the neighborhoods of historic merit, but it is the opposite. one two and three zones shouldn't be upzoned. long established neighborhoods have distinct historic carkte which will be forever changed and it will increase density and eliminate heightened parking restrictions that go against the 1990 resident policies. it is this neighborhood character and support that is critical to be left in the housing element policies. the current iterations do not oppose proposition m policies. objective 11 should read maintain the diverse and
12:53 am
distinct characters of the neighborhoods, rather than start with recognizing and supports and promote, which suggests alterations that would destroy existing neighborhood character. the draft 2010 housing element waters down the importance of the neighborhood voice and tries to amy the same criteria across diverse and union -- unique areas. and the letter to the community advisory board states that it does not undermine efforts or suggest guidelines or neighborhood ccr's. it directs them. it directs changes and opens a door to green light them in the design guidelines to increase density. in fact the section that covers policy 1.4, stating insure neighborhoods with community planning processes are used to generate changes to land use controls. it states such plaps can be used to target growth strategically to increase development close to
12:54 am
transit and other areas as appropriate. it states that the housing element does not create change to development potential at any location in the city, but it direct the change. some areas have traditionally been denser than other areas because of the history of settlements. people chose to live in denser areas because the sparser areas of the city does not enjoy better weather and nearby amenities. part of the charm of the city is having it left with less dense development. some of the areas with more open space would not be considered best use of land but that's part of the character of the neighborhood. why would the housing element push increased density if the city when it is not needed based on existing number of units in the pine lye -- pipeline that should be completed. it is more than met with existing units in this pipeline without even upzoning any district. the housing element also does not take into accounts the other policy documents within its own department and potential conflicts with them let alone
12:55 am
with the other city agencies policies. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm president of the community association. i like to read parts of this letter. originally coming to the association urges the planning commission to reject the 2009 housing element. the housing elements intentions are to create transit villages, allowing the transit quarters or to intensify the quashes. but it fails to recognize certain factors. the most important factor, the first step is that -- for smart
12:56 am
growth you need an efficient effective and a reliable transit system. without it, smart growth is really not smart growth, taking the unique biking and hiking and using car share are good ideas. unfortunately, it does not work for many individuals, for example the families with children, who have many chores, shoving and medical. at the school -- after the school activities and meetings, another example would be seniors and others with fiscal limitations and of course, supervisors, and commissioners and the city's staffers who cannot depend on muni who must have a reserved parking space around city hall and other places. actions speak louder than words. advocates strongest support concept of intensification of the transit corridors. they, and -- they're not willing to compromise away to a translator: it is more
12:57 am
dependable. michael a renowned planner, he had published in a chronicle, november 23rd 2004 that the city completely misunderstands the history and research of transit based housing as quell as the process of community building. mr. burn i think it goes on further, that the concept is scale. there's not one for density, error the appropriate density depends on scale of the surrounding neighborhoods. transit villages respect the character of the surrounding neighborhood, especially that of the character fert -- supported by existing residents. going on, san francisco -- already has wonderful villages which are fragile and can be -- can be destroyed by large scale development. think of san francisco neighborhoods like more very welly and richmond and west
12:58 am
portal and castro and the marina, those are examples. the housing element, ignores the character. it -- it seeks to squeeze persons into these neighborhoods often into -- into hard configurations and against neighborhood opposition. now -- now, i know that -- i need to 0 to submit comments, regarding the housing element, there's several things we oppose. one is policy 1.4, that should not be changed. neighborhoods support it, the planning process is critical. number two 1.5. and understand it has been removed, i'll go past that. number three, policy 10.2 do not weaken d.r. there's a policy 11.4, retain this -- retain this policy. please do not be ward 3.3.
12:59 am
thank you. >> good evening commissioners, my name is sara, i'm deputy director of f.e.r. aftera member of the body to the housing development. i encourage you to ask that the third draft reincorporate some of the smart growth that the first draft that were exercised in the most recent draft. as you can see from the list of public -- comments, henderson who is representing district five and eight and one have all expressed concerns about the current document as that that -- as has the housing collision and the golden gate heights neighborhood association. tim and i are here today. everybody else is exhausted with the process. but -- we'll make our cases if
left
right